Mark Sargent's Dome and Antarctica Claims: Story vs Measurement

Mark Sargent-style flat-earth content is often persuasive because it feels like a mystery narrative: clues, barriers, hidden authorities, Antarctica, domes, and staged space. The problem is that a story is not yet a model. 
 The Claim Pattern 
 Earth is enclosed or dome-like. Antarctica is not a normal continent but a boundary/barrier. Space imagery and exploration are staged or controlled. Specialized institutions know more than the public is allowed to see. 
 The Testable Questions 
 Antarctica claims become meaningful only when they answer measurement questions: 
 What is the predicted circumference of the alleged outer barrier? What distances should flights and ships measure along southern routes? How should 24-hour Antarctic daylight work in December? What should observers in Australia, South Africa, Chile, and Antarctica see in the southern sky at the same time? What route should an east-west Antarctic circumnavigation follow? 
 The Distance Problem 
 If Antarctica is the outer rim on a north-pole-centered flat map, southern distances inflate dramatically. That is not a minor cartography issue; it breaks logistics. 
 The Dome Problem 
 A dome claim must specify optics. How high is the dome? How do light paths bend? Why do stars, planets, satellites, meteors, eclipses, and radio signals behave with repeatable geometry? Without numbers, the dome is a narrative container, not an explanatory model. 
 Direct Debunk 
 The Antarctica/dome story can absorb many mysteries, but it does not predict enough. Once distances, polar daylight, southern stars, and navigation are placed on the table, the story has to become engineering. That is where it fails.